Brussels to sue UK over Phorm failures

Oh really?

"The ICO accepted BT's argument that it would have been hard to explain Phorm's interception and profiling system to internet users whose communications it was being tested on."

So its not illegal if the person you are logging does not know/understand whats going on.

Is that just like saying "I hacked into that shop you just ought something on and stole your credit card. But its too technical for you to understand. So you cant call the police on me"?

Not in whose interest?

As stated by the MET: Prosecution is not in the publics interest.

So the EU sue the tax payer (via government)

Well, It is in the taxpayers interest now!!!

MET wake up. and lock up.

'the bigger they are the harder they are to fell'?? no its 'the harder they fall!'

"hard to explain" - crappy excuse, eh?

Notice that the statement that "The ICO accepted BT's argument that it would have been hard to explain Phorm's interception and profiling system to internet users whose communications it was being tested on." is in the past tense.

This statement is a total fabrication - it's even a feeble attempt to characterise past conversations in such a way as to excuse the handling of this whole sorry mess up until now.

Moreover, I think it's fair to say that this statement should actually be interpreted as:

"The ICO did not have sufficient technical understanding of Phorm's interception and profiling system and, to save face and get any kind of decision made within 20 years, accepted BT's argument that it would have been hard to explain the system to internet users whose communications it was being tested on."

That's what I read between the lines of this utterly pathetic excuse.

I want an apology from Gordon Brown for this one! :-) arf arf

'Intentional' interception?

So are the government are trying to claim that the Phorm trials happened by 'accident'?

The Phorm trials were deliberate, malicious abuse of private communication traffic by a company with an extended history of developing polymorphic spyware.

It was no accident.

Great

This is great news, because human rights are enforced in a twisted sort of way in this country, so this makes me be thankful for the EU membership.

I've come to understand that in this country people who openly want to cause harm on a massive scale can apply and get financial and other kinds of support backed by us the taxpayers, while innocent people's rights are not protected when having their freedoms/rights violated.

For examples of the former see Abu Hamza, etc.

for examples of the latter see DeMenezes, Tomilinson, etc.

More Euro meddling!

How DARE the EU think is is above the UK government on these shores. We fought WARS and THOUSANDS DIED to keep these shores safe from foreign control!

The EU should have NO SAY in how the UK government allows companies, agencies and departments to invade and destroy the public's privacy.....err.....hang on a mo'.....

This only punished the taxpayer

So the Eu is going to fine the UK for illegal wiretapping. The taxpayer picks up the bill. So we are essentially paying for the privilege of being spied upon?

Surely the correct approach would be criminal sanctions against the individuals involved; those people responsible at BT, at Phorm, at the Met, and in government.

AC, because you never know who's listening, but you can be fairly sure that anyone who is is not your friend...

My analogy of "hard to explain" bit

So it would be okay to go ahead and sleep with PH because it would be so hard to explain it to my wife. ;-)

PH, coz she can make things hard.

Thanks EU!

Never thought I'd say this but it's news like this that makes me think that maybe there are good reasons to be part of the EU after all!

Thanks Viviene & team!

So sad that we have to rely on Brussels to protect us

Nuff said really.

Good news, on the face of it...

...until you consider where the money to pay the fine ultimately comes from. It comes from us! Our government has failed to protect our privacy, and as such they are fined which comes out of money *we* have paid in taxes.

I'm glad that something is finally being done about this, but fining the people who have been affected by the wiretaps is not the solution.

Fine by me.

I don't care that the money to pay a fine would come from the taxpayers, if the aftermath helps toward blowing Phorm out of the water then it's money well spent as far as I'm concerned.

Besides, they would only spend it on soft core porn and bath plugs anyway.

die phorm die!

burn in hell you orwellian bastard child yay for the eu for once!

more stealth tax

Great, so I'm paying because my government didn't fight something I didn't want in the first place ... great

Criminal Charges

OK so the UK Government gets fined, we pay.

BT get fined - they are a monopoly - its customers pay.

So I would like to suggest the EU bring criminal charges against BT. A prison sentence would be a good deterrent.

Hitewise: the elephant in the room

At some point surely someone must mention Hitwise? Hitwise have had boxes in the ISPs monitoring internet usage (sorry, I think I am meant to call it wiretapping) for years.

The difference is they have been doing it in a *non-invasive* manner and aggregating the data. Perhaps the government should have a word with them to help understand how to explain the issues and how best to legislate on them?

A sad day

Its a very sad day for democracy in this country when an unelected multinational body has more concern for our citizens than our government

Initial fine only the start

Note that even if the EC decides to fine the UK govt over this that doesn't mean they have done their time and can then ignore the issue. The fine is just a hurry up, they still have to substantively address the issue and make the changes required. The sanctions just get bigger and nastier if they don't. So fear not, this will be no slap on the wrist.

Thank you BT

Brilliant!

I now support the BT/Phorm position 100%.

Get lost you interfering EU persons!

I feel safer in my country knowing that if I ever find myself detained for 42 days for no reason, I can invoke the "You are all too stupid to understand me" defense and the powers that be will simply crumble in the face of such a cogent argument.

Phorm's business model relies on illegal interception.

***"The EU Directive on privacy and electronic communications requires EU Member States to ensure confidentiality of the communications and related traffic data by prohibiting unlawful interception and surveillance unless the users concerned have consented (Article 5(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC)."***

The "users concerned" in any web interaction are the ISP customer and the web site owner. If Phorm / BT didn't / don't ask for explicit permission for the interception of traffic between a web site and a visitor then they are in direct contravention of the Directive.

Irrespective of whether Phorm / Webwise offers ISP customers an opt-in or opt-out, unless they refrain from intercepting data from web sites that have not explicitly opted-in then they are operating *illegally*!

That, effectively, means that Phorm can only legally profile sites that are Phorm / OIX partners. This gives those sites no commercial advantage. The upshot is that Phorm's business model relies on an *illegal* mode of operation.

Phorm can never be viable *and* legal.

Yay!

We've all given the EU stick over its straight-banana laws and such like, but this really proves their worth, yay for the EU!

We saved your arse from the Nazis', now you save us from our rotten government and Nazi-like telecommunication monolith.

i want you to have my babies Viviene !!!!!!! :O)

only one word needed :-

YIPPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE !!!!!!!!!! :O)

Another EU law they should enforce... But don't!

Off topic I know, but there is another piece of EU legislation that the British government choose to ignore.

EU rules state that all items bought new in Europe should come with a two year warranty. Try getting any shop to comply with that!

Viz: DIRECTIVE 1999/44/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

of 25 May 1999

See: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31999L0044:EN:NOT

Bastards, one and all...

@ g e

You might want to take note of the "Joke Alert" icon in future...

Vivat Europa!

Let's all remember this in June and make sure we vote for pro-EU candidates in the European elections.

'Intent'?

"The Commission said: "Under UK law, which is enforced by the UK police, it is an offence to unlawfully intercept communications. However, the scope of this offence is limited to 'intentional' interception only."

Oh so I guess that BT/Phorm only 'accidentally' snooped on everyone's web browsing then huh?

About time!

It's about time someone started taking note of the UK's laws.

What a shame we can no longer rely on government or the police in the UK to enforce them anymore.

*phew*

Glad to see more bad press about this repugnant technology. I was fearing they were on an upward curve after seeing this :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7988154.stm

Nice to see them redefine 'trawl' to meet their evil needs.

Shurely Shum Mistake

Hmmm, AFAIK Phorm isn't live with any ISP at present. Therefore it's hard to see on what basis the EU have based their accusations unless it's outdated/uninformed information spoon fed by the antis.

If consumers opt-in as part of their ISP contract, perhaps as part of a discount scheme or something similar, and are fully aware of the consequences then any Privacy issues are null and void.

Since no-one outside Phorm and their partners has any idea whatsoever how it will be implemented, and there are various options available, this all seems to be a bit of bargaining by the EU to force the UK into accepting some other bit of legislation.

Missing the point

The Germans, French...... (keep on adding to this list until you get bored) don't pay their EU fines. So why should the cash-strapped British Govt?

This is a win-win situation for the politicians; The EU is seen to act tough, and Labour ignore them (spin this as "Protecting the British Tax payer from Brussels Bureaucracy" and the Charmless Man may even get a few more votes)

Nothing is going to change for the rest of us.

@zerofool2005

"I hacked into that shop you just ought something on and stole your credit card. But its too technical for you to understand. So you cant call the police on me"?

Yes in principle, no in practice. You are you. BT are a global corporation who can hire ex ICO employees at good salaries and (AFAIK) the ICO seems to be claiming that it does not regulate non governmental wire taps and (it appears) neither does anyone else. It seems to be claiming that no one thought their would need to be a regulator to cover this area as no one could run a business on large scale un-requested wire taps.

And note how eager this government has been to comply with the EU data retention directive, rather less so with its Privacy Directive, which is substantially older.

and are fully aware of the consequences

Then I'll eat my hat.